Re: [TLS] Request for clarification: "in the same flight"

Thijs van Dijk <schnabbel@inurbanus.nl> Fri, 17 April 2015 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <schnabbel@inurbanus.nl>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649811B2D06 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.712
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.712 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sYRswd0IA4dg for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73EA31B2D08 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by widdi4 with SMTP id di4so21539868wid.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inurbanus.nl; s=google-inurb; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=fkUhf4f2clFZUTIMcb0WH+lOk1/AOf+RD4p/o4b6i/Y=; b=I3H80sWRgjkCb3FaDW8xYWEhqZd34CyWANbX8Z2aUtSnSKMRgB72YaEU0Rds56bTZv bmlK9XEaqOeBOiV7gLwszs/1iA5i/5+u4lfGlUNkY11xGRxM738067YaZHJNvbYWlfOT TJMGrdNs405A9jcW+UQSKxIRS9M0YQZXYhJQo=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=fkUhf4f2clFZUTIMcb0WH+lOk1/AOf+RD4p/o4b6i/Y=; b=H9iTQPkGA/n7rozlEnrL//Dp3kihMzlACLV9Dwj13T/nOlyzryglPAd+YEWLzT/5Hu 284nlKuhdyZsLCA06pl6x9LFPAl5f2ZhF70FfTRiWDerOhAwCbtZ16klaHQg8RqmV0rq mcSGDg+G6/uFtvGssxlD+bVjApGOvMra82rC4iidEmaGXwA8mp0vN4fWWedC+xCZ51Mk FEDCI5+ThtEv1+81qxSKKeZamdqOeeTKEgC/ZsYzRvk7crEWHhp+Tg0NQTDJYMBJK8aX IElijMIBP5Iy0OYRUNBERSyz6gYNDYaFuuD/AWvQ9+iMDKeFVNKhNVpRjRiBdIvEAE5W LVlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmCRSYE9tFj19lHZ3B+O4/3yohwHlJhBlPsByFvWdFIH9fShHl6YGcB4AIvrU86OPxcHl22
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.192.167 with SMTP id hh7mr6305665wjc.151.1429279242084; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.104.138 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <57175023.AVSjdYu02a@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <CADGaDpHn5UoW3JQ58MYVyVZC7YXb3=fSUUz-i=kGi8YH-AHaSA@mail.gmail.com> <57175023.AVSjdYu02a@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:00:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CADGaDpFJK2dHttamYJx5sK1GszuFryZks9dA4xg0y6Wm9bAakQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thijs van Dijk <schnabbel@inurbanus.nl>
To: tls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b8743f8827bf30513ec0185
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/fEqU-qwKqkE9E7Yse-2q2sqx4Fc>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Request for clarification: "in the same flight"
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:00:45 -0000

On 17 April 2015 at 14:34, Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 16 April 2015 18:07:27 Thijs van Dijk wrote:
> > If I were to venture a guess, I'd say the two are equivalent, but it's
> also
> > conceivable that some implementations require any TLSPlaintext to contain
> > exactly one child struct. (Source: mine does; I'm trying to figure out if
> > that's a bug or not.)
>
> It is a bug, see RFC 5246, section 6.2.1
>

Ah, yes.  Thanks for pointing that out!

-Thijs